Ian Hugh Clary, “‘Hot Protestants’: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism” Puritan Reformed Journal 2.1 (January 2010): 41-66. You can download it here.

Seminary training, though not absolutely necessary, is extremely helpful for pastors and church leaders. While it is good to be in an academic environment amongst peers who share in the educational quest, and while exposure to theology, biblical studies and history expand our horizons, probably the most important reason to go to seminary is to learn the biblical languages.

This past year I have been preaching my way through 1 Peter and am struck each and every time I do sermon prep how helped I am from my three years of Greek under the tutelage of Clint Humfrey and Pierre Constant at TBS. I am not at all adept at languages and found Greek to be a struggle, but I am so glad that it was a course requirement! It has proven to be the backbone to how I handle my text for preaching.

As a help and as an apology for Greek exegesis in preaching, I thought that I would share the method that I learned at TBS and demonstrate a little of how I use it in regular ministry.

In first year Greek we learn the basic rules of the grammar. This involves paradigm (nouns and verbs) and vocabulary memorization and basic translation–usually of 1 John. The brutal part of the year is learning participles. In second year we spend our time unlearning what was taught in first year. We found out that the basic rules of grammar have many exceptions and what we think we know about the (for example) genitive is shattered by the whole host of uses it and other parts of a sentence have. Second year is spent learning syntax as well, with the final part of the year given to what is called “phrasing.” In our fourth semester at TBS we worked through Galatians.

For me, third year is where the rubber really hit the road in terms of seeing how Greek exegesis applies to ministry–especially preaching. One of the benefits of studying at TBS is that the professors also have a lot of ministerial experience and gear their classes to praxis. In third year we learned grammatical diagramming, discourse analysis and homiletical outlining–all of which I use to this day. In fifth semester we had to summarise Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and make a workbook out of our summaries. We also translated our way through Philippians, utilizing the excellent commentary by Peter O’Brien. In the sixth semester we dove deep into diagramming and worked through 2 Corinthians using Murray Harris’ (also) excellent commentary. We also had to write an exegetical paper on an assigned text from 2 Corinthians.

Of all of the books that we used, the one that I have found to be most practical is the workbook by George H. Guthrie and J. Scott Duvall, Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Graded Approach to Learning Intermediate and Advanced Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). The book is divided into two sections, the first on a graded approach to syntax that explains how to do grammatical diagramming. It is a section full of charts, biblical examples and exercises that bring the student through the exegetical process in a user-friendly way. The second section is on exegetical method and basically provides the steps one goes through in exegesis.

My basic approach to exegesis is as follows (see image above for an illustration):

1} Set up my ready-made template by copying and pasting my Greek text into a text-box at the top of the page and in the main text-box in the centre of the page.

2} Break down the verse(s) in the main text-box, usually by identifying and separating prepositions, conjunctions and verbs (I sometimes like to embolden the verbs so that they jump out at me).

3} Parse each word, even the ones that are easy like conjunctions and pronouns. I usually leave the article un-parsed. I find that parsing really forces me to slow down and think about the text.

4} Do a rough translation that goes in the third text-box on the right-hand side of the page, trying to be as literal as possible.

5} Grammatically diagram the text seeing how prepositional phrases relate to verbs, what are the subordinating clauses and how do they relate to the main point. Determine how words are being used (i.e. objective vs. subjective genitive, etc). This section requires the use of a good grammar like Wallace’s and a good lexicon like BDAG or Louw-Nida. The results of this part of the study should be noted in the bottom text-box that is dedicated to exegetical notes.

6} Consult a good exegetical commentary or two (or more) like those in the Word or NIGTC series. These will often challenge your initial exegesis and require you to think harder about some of the interpretive decisions you’ve made. Quotes and references should be noted in the notes text-box at the bottom.

7} Determine a homiletical outline that will form the structure of your sermon.

8} Consult homiletical and applicational commentaries for help in terms of applying the text. Such could include the Preaching the Word series edited by R. Kent Hughes or the Reformed Expository Series as well as the NIV Application Commentaries. I am also thrilled with the Ancient Christian Commentary Series that runs like a commentary, but is a collection of quotes from church fathers. It not only makes for useful insights into the text, but also provides good quotes that could be used in sermons.

So many students want to do just two years of Greek and I am constantly telling them, “Do third year!” Diagramming, discourse analysis, exegetical method, etc., are all so important for our approach to the text–I really believe that I would be missing out had I not done this course.

I am deeply thankful to TBS for its high regard for the biblical languages. It is one of the best aspects of my education that I will carry with me for the rest of my ministry.

Contributors include Joe Boot (founder of EICC), John C. Lennox of Oxford, Emil Silvestru a leading geologist, L.T. Jeyachandran (Asia-Pacific Director of RZIM) and Carlisle Percival (CEO Santa Cruz Surgery Center). I would highlight in particular the articles by Jeyachandran and Silvestru. The former is on the relationship between Christianity and science asking whether they are friends or foes. The article proves to be an excellent study of the logic of biblical presuppositions and how they support the scientific enterprise. It is a very well-written and researched article that demonstrates the foundational relationship Christianity has with science.

The latter article deals with how the scientific community has failed to listen to Stephen Jay Gould’s critiques of evolution and how Gould himself failed to take into account Christianity’s solution to the Darwinian problems that he exposed.

The Lennox article, taken from a chapter of his book God’s Undertaker, deals with the debates of Galileo, Samuel Wilberforce and T.H. Huxley. Boot deals with Darwin and the role that evolutionary theory has played within various religious perspectives.

Every single article was worth reading and I learned something from each. So I would highly suggest contacting EICC for your free subscription.

Yesterday I returned from the Basics Conference, hosted by Alistair Begg and Parkside Church. The conference speakers this year included Begg, Sinclair Ferguson and John Shearer–all Scots! I had a phenomenal time. I enjoyed the fellowship of Richard Valade, with whom I traveled, as well as a number of fellow students from TBS.

Below are links to the conference audio (video is also available), which I would recommend listening to. Each sermon and lecture was awesome and I will listen to them again and again.

I do want to pick out one as a particularly important file to download and listen to. John Shearer’s talk on “Reflections and Resolutions for Pastoral Ministry” is very important for pastors and aspiring pastors to listen to. John pastors a small Baptist church in Musselburgh, Scotland (see Musselburgh Baptist Church). It isn’t large or well-known, but he is a faithful pastor. His reflections were humbling, convicting, funny and powerful. That one session was the highlight of the conference for me–and that says a lot because I was completely dumbfounded by Ferguson on Union with Christ!

Session 1: Distinctives of the Man of God (Shearer)

Session 2: Union with Christ for Christian Living (Ferguson)

Session 3: The Word of the Cross (Begg)

Session 4: Union with Christ for Pastoral Ministry (Ferguson)

Session 5: Duties of the Man of God (Shearer)

Session 6: Jesus Christ and Him Crucified (Begg)

Panel Discussion: Begg, Ferguson, and Shearer

Breakout 1: Practical Pointers on Expositional Preaching (Begg)

Breakout 2:  Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Ferguson)

Breakout 3: Reflections and Resolutions for Pastoral Ministry (Shearer)

At the Imperial Diet of Worms the sixteenth-century German Reformer, Martin Luther, famously stood against calls to recant his writings. He had published a number of works criticising the Roman Catholic Church for its excesses, both moral and theological. Thinking himself a loyal son to the Church, the call to recant seriously affected him. We often think of Luther as a firebrand seeking to topple Rome from the outset, however history proves this is not the case. Evidence for this can be seen in the simple fact that when Luther was initially called to recant he requested a night to think about it. Off to his room, Luther spent the night in travail, his inner-most soul crying out to God for direction. As we know, Luther eventually came to the conclusion that he must not recant because Scripture, reason and conscience prevented him from doing so. The next day, before the Diet, Luther boldly uttered the commonly quoted phrase, “Here I stand, I can do no other.” While Luther scholars debate whether or not he actually said those specific words, the Weimar Edition of his works has the following words from his speech that indicate his positive stance: “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe neither in the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

This story from probably one of the most significant events in human history offers us two lessons. First, Christianity is a faith built on conviction. Second, Christians often wobble.

That Christianity is a faith built on conviction is clear. Jesus Christ himself displayed perfect conviction in his ministry–ultimately facing the cross, willing to die for his church. Though he sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, Jesus placed his will in the hands of the Father and fully submitted himself in humble obedience. Paul was also a man of conviction, clearly seen in his face-off with Peter over Jew/Gentile unity in the church. The early church was awash in the blood of martyrs, some known to us in history like Ignatius of Antioch, Perpetua and Felicitas, the Scyllitan Martyrs, and countless others known only to God and the saints in heaven.

Luther’s strength of conviction lies in the threefold appeal he makes to Scripture, reason and conscience–all lessons we can learn from. Scripture: the Reformed principle of sola scriptura binds the life of every Christian to the absolute authority of the Word of God. We submit ourselves to its teaching as the sole guide, trusting it for law and principle. To violate scripture is to violate the very purposes of God. Luther knew this and Christians every should know it too. Reason: Luther is also famous for his very earthy statement that “reason is a whore,” so we often think of Luther in fideistic terms. This is not the case, Luther surely rejected the wrong use of reason–positioning it above revelation–but Luther gloried in reason that subordinate to and squared with Scripture. When we are confronted with compromise, whether it is from without or within, we are being wholly unreasonable. All sin impacts the mind (called the noetic effects of sin) and skews the way we think. Unbelievers are ultimately retarded in their ability to think aright, and Christians who are free from the penalty of sin still struggle to align their reason with the Word. We delight in sin, we hold it close to our breasts, protecting it from holy hands. This is foundationally insane. Conscience: the two previous principles that Luther stood upon find their meeting place in the conscience. When a person’s inner voice is informed by the Bible and sanctified reason, the conscience becomes seed-bed for right or wrong belief and practice. Sin is a direct violation of conscience, and thus a direct violation of Scripture and reason. Yet the conscience is surmountable. If we love our sin we will hate our conscience and do everything to shut its mouth. But for the true Christian, conscience is never ultimately muted. Because the conscience is intimately related to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. My friend John often spoke of the Spirit’s work convicting us of sin by conjuring up the image of the Spirit being physically inside us with a poker, jabbing us when we willfully do what is in contradiction to the express will of God. To violate conscience is one of the worst acts a Christian can do. As Luther said, “it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience.”

Yet, as we have seen in the case of Luther, Christians can wobble. The strength of temptation is found in its subtlety, its feigned appeal to Scripture, its apparent reasonablness. It could be that Luther thought, “I can continue to work for reform from the inside if I recant.” But though he may have struggled, and we Christians regularly do, Luther prevailed by the grace of God. He stood his ground, feet planted firmly in Scripture and reason with a clear conscience. Though it was hard, though he had his dark night of the soul, Luther pleaded for God’s help and was answered. Whether he really said it or not, the words “Here I stand, I can do no other” sit well with Christians who applaud his courage and strength of character.

How often do we compromise? How often do we turn from what we know are solid convictions? We have voiced them loud and proud and now that temptation to violate conscience raises its ugly head, how often do we fall? We turn from those who speak Proverbs 27:6 to us. Rather we hide, clinging to our hollow sin, hoping to get what we want yet remain unscathed by the punishing force of temptation’s ultimate “gratification.” It can come in any form: your boss wants you to fudge numbers to make him look better; you find your identity in a title, your intellect, your life situation; you settle for second best against the plain teaching of Scripture.

But Christianity is built on conviction. It is a faith true and tested, hammered by trials into tempered steal that is unbreakable. It is not the faith of chaff blowing in the wind, though so many Christians are indeed that. And so Luther’s example is a call to all of us to stand firm, hold true to our convictions, be led by Scripture, reason and conscience. And in doing so, we will be an encouragement to our brothers and sisters who struggle, just as Luther is an encouragement to us.

To appreciate the true spirit of the New Atheism, however, and to take proper measure of its intellectual depth, one really has to turn to Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly, he is the most egregiously slapdash of the New Atheists, as well as (not coincidentally) the most entertaining, but I take this as proof that he is also the least self-deluding. His God Is Not Great shows no sign whatsoever that he ever intended anything other than a rollicking burlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor. His sporadic forays into philosophical argument suggest not only that he has sailed into unfamiliar waters, but also that he is simply not very interested in any of it. His occasional observations on Hume and Kant make it obvious that he has not really read either very closely. He apparently believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of God, literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met his demise. The title of one of the chapters in God Is Not Great is “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False,” but nowhere in that chapter does Hitchens actually say what those claims or their flaws are.

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).

In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens’ book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument. After all, there really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot tell what Hitchens’ central argument is. It is not even clear what he understands religion to be. For instance, he denounces female circumcision, commendably enough, but what—pray tell—has that got to do with religion? Clitoridectomy is a widespread cultural tradition of sub-Saharan Africa, but it belongs to no particular creed. Even more oddly, he takes indignant note of the plight of young Indian brides brutalized and occasionally murdered on account of insufficient dowries. We all, no doubt, share his horror, but what the hell is his point?

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.

Conclusion: “Religion” is evil.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: There are many bad men who are Buddhists.

Conclusion: All religious claims are false.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Timothy Dwight opposed
smallpox vaccinations.

Conclusion: There is no God.

One could, I imagine, counter with a series of contrary enthymemes. Perhaps:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Early Christians built hospitals.

Conclusion: “Religion” is a good thing.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Medieval scriptoria saved much of the literature of classical antiquity from total eclipse.

Conclusion: All religious claims are true.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: George Bernard Shaw opposed smallpox vaccinations.

Conclusion: There is a God.

But this appears to get us nowhere. And, in the end, I doubt it matters.

Ray David Glenn is the rector of St. George’s Anglican church in Burlington. In the last week or so his wife Rhonda was found to have a tumor lodged deep in her brain. The Glenns are dear Christians and Ray David is a faithful minister of the gospel. St. George’s Anglican is part of the Anglican Network in Canada–if you know anything of their struggles due to their strength of conviction, then you know the kind of man that Ray David is. I first met him over a year ago at a Simeon Trust preaching workshop–we were workshop partners and I remember thinking he was a snazzy dresser. After meeting him and his fellow ministers I was deeply impressed with their evangelical commitment.

Pray for Rhonda that God would do a miraculous work of healing. Pray also that God would bear her up in Christ through this terrible time of suffering. Pray for Ray David that he would be strong for her and their son Matthew. Pray also that the Lord would strengthen his own heart. Pray for Matthew, this is horrible for a child to go through. Finally, pray that God would be glorified in all of this, because this is the type of prayer that the Glenns are modelling for us.

For updates see the news section of the St. George’s website: http://www.stgeorgesonline.com/cat/news-events/news/

Put them on your prayer lists and pray regularly!

One text in particular stands out in my mind: Revelation 12. I don’t recall whose task it was to deal with this outstanding passage of Scripture, but I do recall David Helm’s comment about the first verse. It reads: “Then a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars.” Judging from the context of the rest of the chapter, the woman is the people of God; whether it is just Israel or whether it is the entire people including the New Testament church is not totally clear (the church appears a little later). Yet there can be no doubt about how God views his people. She is adorned with the sun, a symbol of radiance and light. The moon sits at her feet and she is crowned with twelve stars—either a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel or the twelve apostles. The description leaves one with the vision of a beautiful woman, royal, majestic and precious.

David Helm noted this and reminded us to think on the church the way that God does. Do we view the church, the people of God, with such vaulted imagery? Do we adorn her with the sun? Is she glowing and radiant? Helm admonished us to always maintain a high view of the church and keep her utterly lovely in our eyes. I will never look at Revelation 12 the same again.

Ecclesiology has been brought to my thinking of late. I recently devoured the festschrift for J.I. Packer edited by Timothy George called J.I. Packer and the Evangelical Future. Carl Trueman has a controversial article in it where he highlights areas of weakness in Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ ministry, particularly in his ecclesiology. This is not a new critique, as John Brencher has made plain in his monograph on the Doctor that I read about seven years ago. Packer, according to Trueman, has a robust ecclesiology and it is his view of the church that serves as the ballast for his theologising. While Dr. Lloyd-Jones had a significant and important impact on twentiety-century evangelicalism, his ecclesiology has had a negative impact on subsequent developments in certain Reformed circles. Trueman reminds us that we must keep the church central.

I’ve essentially had my theology reoriented since reading Trueman’s article, indeed even the rest of the book. This is not to say that I’ve had a low view of the church all along and I have only just realised it, rather the church has been more on the periphery in my thinking, but now I realise the need to strive to keep her central.

How does this play itself out practically in the ministry of a pastor? It does so in many respects, more than I can get into here. But I do want to highlight one aspect of ecclesiology that can be considered from two angles. Namely, church membership.

Hebrews 10:25 is the classicus locus of church membership. We are reminded by the author to not forsake the assembling together as some do, but to encourage one another as the day of judgement approaches. Membership is an important issue in the life of the Christian and the life of the church. It is the formal allegiance of an individual into a group who have covenanted together to worship God and live a godly life.

Of course membership can be and is taken for granted. It can be taken for granted when the Christian refuses to join a local church. Now, refusal can be understandable on one level, if it is for theological conviction. For instance, I may not become a member of the paedobaptist church if their church covenant stipulates that I must baptise my child. I may go to that church because they are the only Reformed church in a fifty-mile radius. But if I attend a church where my theological beliefs on core issues are essentially compatible and I refuse to join, I am acting in a forthrightly disobedient manner. Why would I not want to align myself with God’s people? God loves the church so much that he sent the Son to die for her, do I have a right to love her any less? Revelation 12:1 reveals the high esteem that God has for his church, should I not esteem her in like manner?

Church membership can also be taken for granted in another way. If one aligns themself with a church for reasons other than biblical conviction. So for instance, I may join a church because they have a good music ministry—yet they preach a watered down gospel. Or I sign up because a person of the opposite sex that I like attends, but I could give a rip about what is actually taught there. To join a church for any reason other than the desire to follow the biblical injunction is just as bad as the person who refuses to enter into the covenant of membership. Either way, it is not God-honouring.

Joining a church is like entering into marriage. It requires love and committment. One should not hastily enter into membership if they are not familiar with the church or if they are not sure that the theological perspective of the church matches their own thought out convictions. God watches and he knows the heart. To take the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5) for granted is to render an offense to God. I liken it to someone blatantly offending my wife—how would I feel? How does Christ feel when his bride is blighted? When someone neglects the church, takes the church for granted, treats the church as a commodity or a means to an end is sin that God will deal with. The Christian’s perspective should be to view the church as we do our own spouse. We should love the church, care for the church, esteem her before others and ultimately die for her. Nothing less than full, heart-felt committment to the people of God is what God requires.

A funny story, a number of years ago a couple of TBS students (I will leave them nameless) led a college and career study. They decided to do a four-week series listening to Donnelly on hell. I guess it scared the tar out of some in attendance!

So here is Donnelly:

Why Should We Think About Hell?

What Does The Bible Teach About Hell?

What Will Hell Be Like?

What Effect Should This Have Upon Us?